Known and Hidden Relationships of Knowledge Organization Research in the World: a Co-Citation Analysis

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Omid Alipour ¹
• Faramarz Soheili ²
• Soraya Ziaei ³
• Ali akbar Khasseh ⁴

¹ Graduated\ Payame Noor University

² َAsosiate Prof.Payame Noor University

³ َAsosiate Prof. Payame Noor University

⁴ Associate Prof. Payame Noor University

10.22067/infosci.2021.24196.0

Abstract

Introduction: Knowledge organization is one of the old and basic topics of knowledge and information science. The aim of this study is to conduct a scientific mapping of knowledge organization based on author co-citation analysis.
Methodology: The type of research was applied by the citation analysis method. The research records are compiled based on all articles in the two journals of Knowledge Organization and Cataloging and Classification Quarterly and keywords related to the field of knowledge organization indexed in Web of Science database from 1900 to 2019. Finally, 17,950 records were analyzed in full with plain text format. The total number of citations was 360143. In this study, cuts were made for authors who received 130 citations and more, numbering 178; therefore, a 178 by 178 matrix was used to draw the co-citation network and the authors’ co-citation network was drawn. Then the created symmetric matrix was transformed into a correlation matrix. To draw a matrix BibExcel software, to analyze co-citation networks UCINET software, to draw co-citation grid VOSviewer software, to draw a dendrogram diagram SPSS software and to draw a strategic chart Excel software were used.
Findings: The findings show that Horland was highly productive and Salton has highly cited articles in the field of knowledge organization. Robertson and Salton also have the most co-citations in this area. The intellectual structure of the field of knowledge organization consists of 11 main clusters. The largest cluster (cluster 4) consists of 36 researchers dedicated to information retrieval. After that, cluster 1 with 35 authors, which is in the subject of seeking behavior-information retrieval. Categories 10 and 11 also have 18 researchers each, covering topics such as cataloging and classification, and knowledge organization. Cluster 9, with seven authors is the smallest cluster that deals with the subject of scientometrics. Combined clusters, scientometrics, ontology, and cataloging and classification have the highest density. Information retrieval and knowledge organization clusters also have the highest centrality.
Conclusion: The creation of a co-citation network among the authors of the knowledge organization shows the intellectual connection between the authors. Not all prolific writers in this field are necessarily well-known authors. Issues of information retrieval, information behavior, and knowledge organization play an important role in knowledge organization research. Highly productive and high cited authors also cite a more effective presence on the scientific map. The co-citation analysis of the authors can show the most influential authors and the relationships between them. These analyzes can be used in macro-policies and policy-making.

Keywords

• Scientometrics
• Knowledge Structure
• Citation Analysis
• Co-citation Analysis
• knowledge Organization

20.1001.1.22516344.1400.11.2.2.2

---

References

خاصه، علی‌اکبر، سهیلی، فرامرز (1397). ترسیم چشم‌انداز پژوهش در علم‌سنجی و حوزه‌های سنجشی وابسته. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، ۳۳ (۳)، ۹۴۱-۹۶۶. بازیابی شده در 8 خرداد 1400 از

https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-3062-fa.html

خزانه‌ها، مهدیه، حیدری، غلامرضا، مصطفوی، اسماعیل (1398). تحلیل ساختار مطالعات «نظریه‌های علم اطلاعات» بر اساس تحلیل شبکه هم‌واژگانی مقاله‌های در پایگاه اطلاعاتی وب‌آوساینس (۱۹۸۳– ۲۰۱۷). پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، ۳۴ (۳)، ۱۰۵۱-۱۰۷۶. بازیابی شده در 8 خرداد 1400 از

https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-3891-fa.html

دانش، فرشید (1399). کشف و دیداری‌سازی الگوهای برجسته، روابط پنهان و گرایش‌های موضوعی سازماندهی دانش. پژوهش‌نامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 36(2)، 469-500. بازیابی شده در 8 خرداد 1400 از

 https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-4354-fa.html

دانش، فرشید، نعمت اللهی، زهرا (1399). خوشه‌بندی مفاهیم و رویدادهای نوپدید سازماندهی دانش. فصلنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 23(2)، 53-85. doi: 10.30481/lis.2020.213568.1666.53-85

دانیالی، سمیرا، نقشینه، نادر (1393). ترسیم نقشه هم‌استنادی نویسندگان برجسته حوزه‌ی بازیابی تصویر. مجله علم‌سنجی کاسپین، ۱ (۲)، ۶۶-۷۳. بازیابی شده در 8 خرداد 1400 از

http://cjs.mubabol.ac.ir/article-1-51-fa.html

سهیلی، فرامرز، شعبانی، علی، خاصه، علی‌اکبر (1394). ساختار فکری دانش در حوزۀ رفتار اطلاعاتی: مطالعۀ هم واژگانی، تعامل انسان و اطلاعات، ۲ (۴)،21-36. بازیابی شده در 8 خرداد 1400 از

https://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2446-fa.html

مختارپور، رضا، حیدری، غلامرضا، زوارقی، رسول (1398). تحلیل ساختار فکری مدارک علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی ایران (۱۹۷۰-۲۰۱۶)؛ مطالعه هم‌استنادی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، ۳۵ (۱)، ۲۳۳-۲۶۰. بازیابی شده در 8 خرداد 1400 از

https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-3806-fa.html

Borner, K. Chen, C. & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual review of information science and technology, 37(1), 179–255.

https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370106

Bu, Y. Wang, B. Huang, W. B. Che, S. & Huang, Y. (2018). Using the appearance of citations in full text on author co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 116(1), 275-289.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2757-z

Bu, Y., Wang, B., Huang, W. B., & Che, S. (2017, October). MFTACA: An Author Co-citation Analysis Method Combined with Metadata in Full Text. In ISSI, 916-927. Retrieved on 29may 2021from

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MFTACA%3A-An-Author-Co-citation-Analysis-Method-with-Bu-Wang/c77aeb4c8f2a2cdb09dfe5c9c25e5a3fbae22b04

Castanha, R. C. G. & Wolfram, D. (2018). The domain of knowledge organization: A bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space. KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION, 45(1), 13-22.‏

https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-13

Chang, Y. W. Huang, M. H. & Lin, C. W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2071-2087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1762-8

Gonzalez-Valiente, C. L. Santos, M. L. & Arencibia-Jorge, R. (2019). Evolution of the Socio-cognitive Structure of Knowledge Management (1986–2015): An Author Co-citation Analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(2), 36-55.‏DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2019-XXXX

Hou, J. Yang, X. & Chen, C. (2018). Emerging trends and new developments in information science: A document co-citation analysis (2009–2016). Scientometrics, 115(2), 869-892.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2695-9

Jeong, Y.K. Song, M. and Ding, Y. (2014). Content-based author co-citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.12.001

Ke, W. Yunjiang, X. Xiao, L. & Weichan, L. (2013, August). Analysis on current research of supernetwork through knowledge mapping method. In International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, 538-550 .Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39787-5_45

Khasseh, A. A. Soheili, F. & Chelak, A. M. (2018). An author co-citation analysis of 37 years of iMetrics. The Electronic Library, 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-09-2016-0191

Liu, G.Y. Hu, J.M. & Wang, H.L. (2012). A co-word analysis of digital library field in China. Scientometrics, 91(1), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0586-4

Mazzocchi, F. (2018). Knowledge organization system (KOS): an introductory critical account. KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION, 45(1), 54-78.‏ https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-54

McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<433::AID-ASI11>3.0.CO;2-Q

Melcer, E. Nguyen, T. H. D. Chen, Z. Canossa, A. El-Nasr, M. S. & Isbister, K. (2015). Games research today: Analyzing the academic landscape 2000-2014. Network, 17, 20.‏ Retrieved on 29may 2021from

http://www.fdg2015.org/papers/fdg2015_paper_41.pdf

Shiau, W. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Yang, H. S. (2017). Co-citation and cluster analyses of extant literature on social networks. International Journal of Information Management, 37(5), 390-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.04.007

Tsay, M. Y., Tseng, Y. W., & Lai, C. H. (2019). Construction of Knowledge Map by Co-Citation Analysis: A Case Study on the Topic of Information Behavior. In ISSI, 2592-2593. Retrieved on 29may 2021from

https://dblp.org/db/conf/issi/issi2019.html

Verma, S. (2018). Mapping the intellectual structure of the big data research in the IS discipline: A citation/co-citation analysis. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 31(1), 21-52.‏ DOI: 10.4018/IRMJ.2018010102

 White, H. D. & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author co-citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.

White, H. D. (2003). Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of

paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 423–434.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302

Yaghtin, M. Sotudeh, H. Mirzabeigi, M. Fakhrahmad, S. M. & Mohammadi, M. (2019). In quest of new document relations: evaluating co-opinion relations between co-citations and its impact on Information retrieval effectiveness. Scientometrics, 119(2), 987-1008.‏ DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03058-3

Zhao, D. & Strotmann, A. (2020). Telescopic and panoramic views of library and information science research 2011–2018: a comparison of four weighting schemes for author co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 1-16.‏ DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03462-0

Zou, Q. (2018). Represent Changes of Knowledge Organization Systems on the Semantic Web. International Journal of Librarianship, 3(1), 67-77.‏ 10.23974/ijol.2018.vol3.1.64